If you’re reading this you’re probably thinking what has cross promotional marketing to do with children. Personally when I first heard the term I was thinking what exactly is it?

Simply, cross-promotional marketing is the act of strategically aligning businesses that target the same market but do not directly compete with each other. Whenever two organizations join forces to attract their mutual customers they can more than double the number of prospects they each reach.

For example, in 1996 MacDonalds and Disney signed a ten year deal to cross-promote. Get it? Same market, but not in direct competition and double the reach. A subsequent survey by Eric Schlosser of US schoolchildren found that the only fictional character with greater recognitions than Ronald MacDonald – who had 96% recognition – was Santa Claus. Oh, by the way, MacDonalds operates more playgrounds – designed to attract children and their parents to its restaurants – than any other private entity in the US;

This sort of promotion is also seen with film tie-ins such as Burger King and Toy Story.

Sorry to be a spoilt sport, but given the obesity epidemic - currently 10% of children worldwide are either overweight or obese - it’s time to rethink cross-promotion.

Beware; next time you are out and about, particularly if you have children, you will start to see cross-promotion all around you.

It’s been a bad week for booze lovers. An Oxford study estimated that in 2005, alcohol caused over 30 000 UK deaths, costing the NHS over £3 billion. 6% of deaths and 10% of all “ill-health” (as measured by "disability-adjusted life years”) are caused by alcohol. To put it in context, the same researchers showed last month that smoking caused 19% of all deaths and 12% of ill health, costing over the NHS £5 billion per year.

The President of the Royal College of Physicians, Dr Ian Gilmore, has made no secret of his desire to raise the profile of alcohol-related disease as a problem that can no longer be ignored. Writing in this week’s British Medical Journal, he speaks of “many factors that are deeply embedded in society and individual behaviours that influence how, why, and how much people drink. Previous public health campaigns, such as weekly alcohol limits, have been unsuccessful in reducing binge-drinking. On the other hand, the alcohol industry spends £800 million annually on marketing (about a quarter of what their product costs the NHS per year). A report commissioned by the British Medical Association shows that existing controls on alcohol advertising are inadequate, especially in young people, and as Gilmore says, “We should have learnt from tobacco that voluntary partnerships with the relevant industry do not work”. Calls are being made to curb merchandising, sponsorship of sporting events, competitions and loyalty schemes.

A systematic review of 13 studies of almost 40 000 young people found good evidence to support the impact of media exposure and alcohol advertising on subsequent alcohol use, including initiation of drinking and heavier drinking among existing drinkers. The UK is the only country in Europe with no restrictions on alcohol advertising and this method has been shown to work in other countries. Therefore, a Europe-wide ban on alcohol advertising has been recommended as a cost-effective health policy.

However, research and policy will have to be more innovative than simple bans if we are to change the current drinking behaviour of young people. For example, measures to change behaviours of college or university students were found to be more effective if they were web-based, compared with mail-based feedback.